How feminism made women unsuitable for marriage and parenting

Check out this article about feminism and the hook-up culture, from the Weekly Standard.

Excerpt:

…there’s currently a buyer’s market in women who are up for just about anything with the right kind of cad, what with delayed marriage (the average age for a woman’s first wedding is now 26, compared with 20 in 1960, according to the University of Virginia-based National Marriage Project’s latest report); reliable contraception; and advances in antibiotics (no more worries about what used to be called venereal disease). No-fault divorce, moreover, has pushed the marriage-dissolution rate up to between 40 and 50 percent and swelled the single-female population with “cougars” in their 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond. On top of it all is the feminist-driven academic and journalistic culture celebrating that yesterday’s “loose” women are today’s “liberated” women, able to proudly “explore their sexuality” without “getting punished for their lust,” as the feminist writer Naomi Wolf put it in the Guardian in December.

Wolf devoted her 1997 book Promiscuities to trying to remove the stigma from . . . promiscuity. On the one hand, she decried the double-standard unfairness of labeling a girl who fools around with too many boys a “slut,” and, on the other, she lionized “the Slut” (her capitalization) as the enviable epitome of feminist freedom and feminist transgression against puritanical social norms. Wolf’s point of view is today mainstream. It’s the underlying theme of Eve Ensler’s girls-talk-dirty Vagina Monologues, performed every year on Valentine’s Day on college campuses across the country. A chapter from Promiscuities titled “Sluts” has made so many women’s studies reading lists that term-paper mills sell canned essays purporting to dissect it. A group calling itself the Women’s Direct Action Collective issued a manifesto in 2007 titled Sluts Against Rape insisting that “a woman should have the right to be sexual in any way she chooses” and that easy availability was “a positive assertion of sexual identity.” In other words, if people call you a whore because you, say, fall into bed with someone whose name you can’t quite remember, that’s their problem. Of course, if a man mistakes a woman being “sexual in any way she chooses” for consent to have sex, it’s still rape.

The same feminist academics pooh-pooh concerns about the long-term effects of the hookup culture, arguing that it’s essentially just a harmless college folly, akin to swallowing goldfish, which young women will outgrow after graduation with no lasting scars. As long as they take precautions against disease and pregnancy, the current wisdom goes, it might even be good for you: a sort of rumspringa for the non-Amish in which you get your girls-gone-wild urges out of your system before you settle down to have babies.

[…]Thanks to late marriage, easy divorce, and the well-paying jobs that the feminist revolution has wrought for women, the bars, clubs, sidewalks, and subway straps of nearly every urban center in America overflow every weekend with females, young and not so young, bronzed, blonded, teeth-whitened, and dressed in the maximal cleavage and minimal skirt lengths that used to be associated with streetwalkers but nowadays is standard garb for lawyers and portfolio managers on a girls’ night out. The prelude to the $50,000 wedding these days isn’t just the budget-busting shower—although that’s de rigueur—but the bachelorette party, in which the bride and her BFF’s don their skinnies and spaghetti straps and head to a bar to be hit on, sometimes bride and all, by whatever males are bold enough (the typical accoutrements of the bachelorette party are a $15 “ironic” veil for the bride and a sculpted replica of a male sex organ that’s often brought to the bar).

All this takes place to a basso profundo of feminist cheerleading. Wolf’s op-ed in the Guardian praised the uninhibited sexual “self-expression” of the four female leads in Sex and the City, especially the 40-something Samantha (hitting 50 in the 2008 movie), who, during the six seasons that the series ran, racked up nearly as many sex partners (41) as her three coleads combined—and Carrie, Miranda, and Charlotte were no slouches themselves in the quickie department. “Did not thousands of young women . . . breathe a sigh of relief or even liberation watching Samantha down another tequila, unrepentantly ogle the sex god at the end of the bar, and get richer and more beautiful with age, with no STDs or furies pursuing her?,” Wolf gushed.

Urban life, furthermore, turns out to imitate Sex and the City. A survey reported in the New York Daily News around the time of the film’s release revealed that the typical female resident of Manhattan, who marries later on average than almost every other woman in the country, has 20 sex partners during her lifetime. By way of contrast, the median number of lifetime sex partners for all U.S. women ages 15 to 44 is just 3.3, according to the Census Bureau’s latest statistical abstract.

There’s a lot more in the original piece, but the main point is that feminists wanted this to happen, and women today can decide for themselves whether they like the results of feminism. I know one thing for sure – no Christian man wants to marry a woman who engages in recreational sex outside of marriage. It ruins a woman’s capabilities in a host of areas necessary for love, marriage and parenting, not the least of which is trust. A woman has to stop this behavior and put on chastity in order to stand any chance of having a successful marriage, in my opinion.

What do women value in men?

The hook-up culture is bad news for guys like me who are chaste. Hooking-up over and over again is lousy preparation for courtship, marriage and parenting. It ruins a woman’s ability to be romantic, trusting and vulnerable.

But feminism also wrecks a woman’s ability to choose men who are marriage ready. Feminism tells a women that there are no special roles that men should take on – like the roles of provider, protector and moral/spiritual leader. One a woman accepts that men have no marriage-specific roles, then they cease to test men to see if they can perform those marriage-specific roles. Instead, women just choose men on superficial criteria. Instead of looking a a man’s resume or his ability to care for others, she focuses instead on superficial stuff like the clothes he wears or whether her friends think he is funny.

Consider confidence. Confidence is something that women today often say they want. The problem is that an attitude of confidence can be faked when it rests on nothing. All you can see by looking is the attitude, not the reality. A man can be confident about being able to support the costs of raising children and yet this confidence could be completely unwarranted by his education or work history. While a man who is fearful and lacks confidence can in fact be more qualified to be a provider because of his education and work history.

So, a better strategy than trying to measure a man’s confidence with the eyes is to talk to the man. Ask him about his plan and assess whether he has done enough preparation to achieve his goals. Ask for some evidence!

Here are a few more of the criteria that women use to choose men:

Being tall

Being aloof and disinterested

Playing a musical instrument

Well-dressed

Stylish shoes

A deep voice

Handsome face

A deep voice? Shouldn’t it matter more what the voice actually says? For both Christian and non-Christian women that I’ve met, the answer is inevitably NO. Many women have children out-of-wedlock (40%), and the children of these single mothers suffer. 70% of divorces are initiated by women, which is also devastating to any children present. Presumably they selected a father for these children using silly criteria as above. It won’t work. And then children are raised without a father, and the cycle repeats itself.

What does such criteria say about women’s goals for relationships? Are they really interested in marriage and parenting? Do they really care if their children have a relationship with God throught faith in Christ?

95 thoughts on “How feminism made women unsuitable for marriage and parenting”

When I became a Christian a couple months before turning 22, I then decided I wanted to leave the military instead of making it a career (I had just over a year left of my second enlistment at that time) and get married and raise a family. My first goal of course was to find a woman who was a Christian and who hadn’t given herself away. SO, NO, you are not the only one like that. I began praying for a wife, and 7 months after coming to the Lord I met my wife, who was just a month away from starting college – and had only ever been on one date previously with a guy she learned had one thing on his mind (which cut that date short!). I didn’t know that when I met her, but it was my gentlemanly treatment of her during our first meeting that she said opened her up for my request for a date, and my continued respectful treatment of her is what kept her going out with me. 35 years later we are still together.

This fills me with hope. I just keep wondering whether anyone cares about these sacrifices I have been making to stay chaste and to save money for the marriage/children. It’s like no one cares about the enterprise of marriage – I am being judged based on whether I am “fun”. When I read about women going home with pick-up artists who treat them like dirt and have no aptitude for love and marriage, I think “why bother”. Christianity seems to play no part in relationships, and I mean with Christian men and women. I am of course more concerned about the women, but I think the men have a lot to answer for as well, if you know what I mean and I think you do.

The way to attract the right woman isn’t to be a good Christian. It’s to be a joyful one. Sounds like you’re about as fun and relaxed as a drill master.

Let your light shine and have a sense of humor. Without it, I’m afraid, you’re going to be sitting alone with your Bible for a very long time. And I say that as a single Sunday School teacher. PS: a very wise teacher of mine said, “it doesn’t matter whether or not you are loved, but whether you are loving.”

The right way to attract a women is not to appeal to her emotions. It’s to convince her that you know what you say you know on the basis of rigorous academic study, and that you are capable of acting consistently with what you say you know. Christianity is about truth, truth and truth. The emotions are a nice side benefit. Some might even say they are a distraction.

I’m a Christian woman, and while the most important thing to me about my fiance is his love of God and humility towards him, he did not spend his time trying to “convince” me he knew the Lord. He SHOWED me he knew the Lord by walking in Christ’s love, having joy, peace, compassion, and strength. Don’t spend your time “convincing” girls you’re a good Christian. Just BE a Christian and women (it just takes one woman!) will see that and be drawn to you.

And Mormons can be good Mormons, and Hindus can be good Hindus. That’s the problem with your view. Being “good” doesn’t show that a person believes what is true. But it is easier – less work – for those who are opposed to work.

I have learned over the years that women of the type a Christian man would want to marry appreciate being treated as women – you know, with chivalry. I was always enamored with the “gentlemen” and the chivalry demonstrated by them in the old movies and the books I’d read. These types were the ones to emulate. And I discovered even as a pagan in high school that, while guys made fun of me, the girls would usually seek me out for help with school work, etc even if they didn’t want to date me (I was not a jock and sort of geeky in those days). Even after marriage, my wife’s lady friends have always said how lucky she is to have such a “gentleman” for a husband. The young women I work with respect me because i’m about the only one who doesn’t hit on them. So I think the whole feminist idea of not wanting to be treated like ladies is pure bunk. If you treat a woman with respect, they respond to it. I always open my wife’s car door for her to get in (she doesn’t wait for me when getting out!), I always open doors for her, have always held her hand, surprise her with flowers or other small gifts now and then, etc. I did the same while dating. I’m always amused at how many times she is told how lucky she is. I don’t see the big deal – I’ve just always thought that way. I guess I’m sort of a romantic!

So hang in there guy – they really are out there waiting to be treated like ladies and not as toys to use and toss.

Great comments. I, too, favored the gentlemanly approach, but like WK, it hadn’t gone well for me. However, being married now, I do get similar feedback as you have desribed. And of course, the wife appreciates it. The best feedback I got came recently. A couple down the street were having troubles, and my wife was talking to the woman. Her daughter is in the same grade as ours. Anyway, she said her daughter suggested that she find a guy like Mr. Marshall Art. I guess my notion of what a husband should be is noticably different from the girl’s father and appeals to her. I could not be more gratified!

As to the post, I couldn’t agree more with how the feminist mindset has corrupted womanhood. It’s sad that a movement purported to support women in a male-dominated society has felt the need to make women into the very thing they didn’t like about men. Yeah, they’re equal now, aren’t they. They’re just as shallow and every bit the scumbag as men are. They gained the world but lost their souls. Now, I guess, a good woman is as hard to find as a good man.

Like Glenn, I think in terms of class, honor, gentlemanliness and holding fast to one’s values and scruples. I know you do as well, WK, and it WILL serve you well in the long run. Waiting for a babe who thinks in kind is well worth the effort.

All you guys can complain as much as you want about feminism. But you are about 35 years too late.

The fact is, feminism has succeeded because women embrace the changes it has brought. All that other stuff you lament could actually be the result of women wanting to give men a taste of their own medicine: what’s good for the goose. That’s where a lot of the sexual bravado comes from among younger women. But it’s not going to go away. And it’s never going to be like it was, where men had multiple options at home and the workplace and women had few. And it’s not going to go back to men having “experience” before marriage, and women not.

Get real. Women aren’t tools. If a man somewhere is enjoying something, they’re going to set their sights on it, whether it’s good for them or not.

So stop lamenting what feminism has done to women. Most women don’t agree. And bringing it up just makes you sound like an angry old guy who doesn’t get his way enough. I’m sure you’re nothing like that! But seriously, can’t you complain about something you might actually be able to change?

So, McSpinster,
Following your logic, what makes women unsuitable for marriage and parenthood according to the above post, is what men have been doing for, like, forever, therefore men have never really been suitable for marriage and parenting?

Just saying. ;)

(Always love ‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander’ posts. If I’m having a bad day, they always make me feel better. Sorry if I’ve stepped on any toes. Just wish more men would stop telling women, ‘Do as I say and not as I do’ and replace that with, ‘follow me as I follow Christ.’ And then REALLY follow Christ for a change. Nothing against anyone here personally. Maybe you guys really are following Christ. It’s just that there are many men who say that they are but they are really following their own flesh and use the Bible to make it ‘right’ somehow. After a while, women see through it and get weary of it. Be blessed and filled with Him and become the men Jesus wants you to be.)

Only SOME women have embraced SOME of the changes feminism has brought about. For the most part feminism has brought in promiscuity and the idea that men no longer have to be responsible for getting a woman pregnant, has brought in rampant abortion number, brought liberal theology into the church, embraced the homosexual agenda, social engineering in the military, etc.

Just because there are men who think it’s okay to fool around before marriage, that doesn’t mean all men do. So the whole idea of women become sluts just to be equal with men who are sluts doesn’t improve the the status of women one iota!

And who says you can’t change the feminist agenda? All we have to do is raise our own children – both boys and girls – to see the harm that comes from feminist agendas.

Good points Glenn. The problem is that some of the money we need to raise our own children is being redirected to government to undermine the worldviews of other children. And what’s more, the bad guys are in charge now and they are looking greedily at your children and resenting your influence on them. You can see it in the way homeschooling is under fire, and the way that Hillary pushes for universal pre-K, and the way that Democrats favor disproved programs like Head Start, which marginalize the father’s role as protector and provider.

Dear, were you born yesterday? Do you not know the story of the men who Jesus prevented from stoning the adulterous woman through his simple declaration, “he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.” And every one of them were persuaded to put down their stones. They were guilty. They far outnumbered her. And so it has been throughout history.

If you don’t know this, then you don’t know one of Jesus most central teachings. Or history.

Purity has been long centered on the reputations of women in the family. They could and were stoned for sins that men freely committed. Ergo, the men could do what they wanted for the duration of history. The women, until the past 35 years or so here in the US, could not.

Promiscuity, in other words, was male privilege. David and Bathsheba. Hello? THe seventh commandment? Why do you think that was thrown in there? Because it was common practice for men to steal/kidnap the wives and daughters of those they conquered. It wasn’t because women were “loose.” Who do you think always got stoned for adultery? Women. Who did most of the adultery and the stoning? Men.

Look it up.

It would also benefit you to examine the historical underpinnings of the women’s movement. I doubt you lived through it, but I did. Women weren’t allowed to vote. This may be stating the obvious, but it’s hard to tell from your writing that you are aware of this. You may be so young as to assume that men and women have always acted as they do now.

Women, until the women’s movement, weren’t given protection for domestic abuse. They were treated as marital property. A women raped was assumed to have asked for it. Men could and did divorce their wives without having to support the children that were also theirs. Women were prevented from working in many jobs and from attending many schools. They had few legal rights. They were denied basic education. Why? Because the prevailing rule was that men were in charge of everything and women stayed home as wives and mothers. You can get mad at me for saying this, but that’s simply historical fact.

But for some reason, you only recall that feminism opened the doors for women to sleep around. Your beef appears to be that prior to feminism, men were virtuous monks. This is a different argument than the one that floats around most of the other comments here, which is that the problem wasn’t that men were promiscuous, but that once women started doing the same, it tipped the balance of power. Now it was women doing it and challenging the authority of men. That’s what got everyone up in arms.

I can tell you from living through that era, that women weren’t looking to beat mean at their own game. They were trying to point out the hypocrisy of men expecting their wives to be chaste when they themselves were not. Many others were simply looking to get an education and enter the workforce after the war. For myself, you know when I got on board? When I was in the eighth grade and I was told I couldn’t take shop. I had to take home ec and learn how to make pancakes and sew an apron.

My dad had a wood shop at home. I’m one of five daughters; I’ve always been into carpentry because he was. I also knew how to cook and sew. But in school, I wans’t allowed to take shop because it wasn’t consider “feminine.” I went home and got my parents to write a letter to the schoolboard and submitted it to the school board and they changed their policy. But it took a while.

Back to the early feminists. They represented women who wanted to be free from being harrassed when they did enter the workplace. Hard to imagine? I’ve had male colleagues call me over to their desks to show me the latest internet porn. Had bosses tell me I could get ahead by wearing more low cut dresses. Say what you will about women and their complaints, but don’t dismiss them without trying to understand what it’s like to be treated that way when youre trying to do your job.

Certainly, not all men are promiscuous and few harrass. But the numbers historically and scientifically show that even with women free to sleep with whomever they please, that they will never ever catch up with men on that score.

The church has never effectively dealt with the topic of male conquest although it is fond of talking that it’s men’s nature. Now it must deal with women acting likewise. It’s convenient of you to take women to task. But it will never change anything until men take it upon themselves to make those changes within themselves. Many do and I admire them. Perhaps you’ll become one of them yourself one day. Until then, learn a little and please, get rid of that rock pile. It’s unChristlike and very unmanly.

McSpinster.
Were you aware that in the O.T. law that when a couple were caught in adultry BOTH were stoned.

In fact, did you know that if there was a case where both weren’t stoned, but only one, it was the MAN.

(The reason being, the man could have been raping her out in the country where no one could hear her initial cries for help. And just in case of rape, they let her go. But if it happened in the city, no go. They were both stoned because someone would have heard her cry out. God’s rules were far more just to women than the rules of the nations around them. In those nations, if a woman is raped, it was HER fault no matter what. This is how it it in many Muslim nations now.)

So anyway, when those men drug that woman to Jesus, men who should have KNOWN what the law said, they drug the wrong one to him. They should have drug the man. But these men weren’t interested in justice. First, they wanted to test Jesus. Second they wanted to punish the woman and warn all other women. The law of God in the hands of men is not always just towards women.

And sadly, women cannot always trust men to keep things fair. This is why there is feminism, not sex. With men, it’s always about sex. Stop blaming feminism. It was the sexual revolution, in which men played as big a part as women, that made men and women loose and lose. Feminism is just trying to get men to stop stacking the deck against women.

‘The analysis follows a report from a prominent liberal commentator which also revealed that far from wanting to be “superwomen who manage everything, plus a high-profiled career”, many women just want to be stay-at-home mothers with their husbands taking the role of breadwinner…

‘Ministers have redoubled efforts to persuade mothers to take jobs in the face of evidence that a big majority of the poorest families are two-parent families in which only the father works.’

That’s because Labour penalises honest, upstanding married couples.

Anyway, the tide is turning, albeit slowly. There is hope of finding a helpmeet, Wintry Knight, probably when and where you least expect it. That’s how it happened for me 20 years ago this month.

Wintery Knight, no offence meant, but I read a few of your links above. Some of these criteria for Christian women set the bar pretty high. I’m not sure if you were being facetious with some of them. If not, you could be scaring off many a worthy, potential bride with:

– buy him things to help him with his plan
– take on difficult long-term commitments like starting a business, being a missionary, earning degrees
– practice arguing with men about facts and policies, disregarding your own person, and focusing on the arguments
– I am a big believer in eye contact and long written essays
– A woman should be able to drive a stick shift, fire a Springfield Arms XD accurately, do the family tax return, throw a football 20 yards, and barbecue steaks

Then, you would still expect them not to assert their identities as equal partners? How could anyone (man or woman) manage to do all of what you request before or soon after marriage? That’s a tall order, to put it mildly. Impossible, one would think. We can’t have it all in this fallen world of fallen people. But perhaps I have misinterpreted what you meant.

Let’s not forget that she may ask what you bring to the table. ;) Is that a legitimate question? :)

When I met my BH, it was through a mutual friend at a dinner party. We just got to talking at length to each other. We then got to know each other as friends and our lives have evolved as one through marriage (19 years later this year). We never used checklists, questionnaires or criteria. We became each other’s best friend and still are today.

You’re right, I demand the impossible. So far, I’ve met one women who could do most of this, and she agreed in prnciple with everything. So they do make them like that. I’m bringing a lot to the relationship, and I demand a lot.

Let me talk about this one woman, and hope she doesn’t notice. These are just examples, ok?

– she gave me books by William Wilberforce
– she gave me a statue of a white chess knight 10 inches tall
– she is starting a tutoring business to prepare for teaching children
– she changes her mind about things when I give her books to read
– we would sit and talk for 6 hours at a time on Saturdays, and 4 hours on week nights
– she can write up a storm, it’s what she does
– she hates small talk and gets annoyed if I try to talk about nonsense, e.g. – the weather
– she NEVER talks about her feelings, I have to bribe her and she still won’t do it

The only things she can’t do are drive a stick shift and fire a hand gun and do the taxes and throw a football. But who cares? As long as she agrees to them in principle, and shows evidence of being teachable, that’s good enough. The main thing is that she is sensible and willing to be led, so long as I lead her upward, not downward.

Another woman gave me multiple questionnaires to fill out with over a dozen questions each. So sensible women are out there. And they are AWESOME! Men need to demand more from women. Women are capable.

One of my complaints in the past has been The Knight’s demand for what an ideal mate would be. I commented in the past how unrealistic they are, because there is an awful lot of self-focus – what she can do for you! If I had that checklist I’d still be looking for a wife. The only “difficult, long-term commitment” I asked of my wife was marriage. My wife has never been one for long written essays – or long writing at all! But then, who cares? How does that make one a better companion and wife? I want my wife to talk about her feelings because that helps me to understand more about her – yes after being together for over 35 years one can never stop learning about the other. Our main common interest has always been our faith, and that is really all that’s important. If you practice your faith seriously, the rest will fall into place.

You say you bring a lot to the relationship and therefore demand a lot; that also sounds very full of self-importance. Just what can you bring to a relationship that any other man can’t also bring to a relationship?

I have long found your site to be very informative and you have some really good ideas, comments, etc – most of the time. But every time you start in about what a relationship with a woman should be about (and I agree that feminism has wrecked many women) and what the perfect woman should be and courtship and all that, I have to chuckle because with your demands you will be lucky to ever find this fairy-tale woman, let alone get married!

I would say that the 3 assets I am bringing to the table are 1) chastity, 2) capital, and 3) a vision for passing the Christian worldview on to our children, as demonstrated by my other friendships and mentoring.

I already met one woman who could do pretty much everything I wanted, and through my writing. She though that my requirements were pretty standard, although she thought hand-holding was OK before the engagement, and I don’t think it’s OK. I was the one who wanted to touch her, though, despite my rules! She offered that as a concession. I declined after thinking about it because I felt that it would hurt her if things didn’t work out. When it comes to women, priority one is to protect them, and that means protecting them from yourself, too.

Chastity is certainly an asset, as is the Christian worldview, which I maintain every Christian man should have to bring into the relationship, so you have nothing there different than any other man should have (you said you are bringing a lot – I don’t see that as a lot). As for the capital, there you get too hung up, in my opinion. It doesn’t take a lot of capital to get married – it takes a work ethic. As I noted before, I stared in marriage with little capital, mostly because I saved little while in the Army (spent most of the little income to get pilot licenses) and being laid off. BUT we went into the partnership with the idea that one doesn’t have to start rich or have luxuries. That makes materialism to heavy of a standard.

Nevertheless, you are saying you are bring a lot to the relationship and my point is that you really aren’t bringing anything to it that any other Christian man should be bringing into a relationship. And then you say for that, there are a whole list of demands for the woman! Chuckle.

As for holding hands, I think that is okay once there is a commitment to progress with a relationship towards engagement – once you decide the person is definitely in the running, holding hands is a way of bringing a bit more intimacy than just a friendship. Just a thought.

Regarding chastity, you’ll have to assess whether young men are as chaste as you say these days yourself. When I say chastity, I mean that as a short hand for the complete package I bring to the table – chivalry, romance, attention, etc. Women want the security of knowing there would be no affairs, and I am offering that.

Regarding capital, it depends what your plans are. I have big plans for my children. It’s not materialism, it’s giving the Lord effective defenders. I’ve been planning to allow ALL of my children to go as far as they want to go – right to post-doctoral, if they want to. That takes capital, as well as appropriate mentoring, etc. I also know that women want economic security, and I am offering that.

I’m offering more besides, but those are a few of the high points. I need to remain in the shadows, after all!

I think everyone should understand that you are speaking from a position where you have had a great deal of success in your marriage as well, so I am listening to what you’re saying and considering it.

I fully understand your meaning of Chastity, and agree with it. And I know many young Christian men who have indeed met those standards, including my own son. So, again, I’m just saying that among Christian men it should be the norm (Not that it is, as we all know).

My wife knew I would provide for her even though it looked bleak at the time, because she knew my work ethic. We started out on a shoestring and I worked hard to where the year I retired I was making just over $100,000. In 1976 i made about $15,000 working three jobs at one point. We lived in apartments for our first three years of marriage while we saved for our first small house of just over 800 sq. ft. It didn’t take money to teach our kids the Faith and educate them in a Christian worldview. As for “big plans” for children, what can you do besides raise them to be good adults? I told my kids that if they wanted college, they would have to work for it because if they had it paid for then they wouldn’t value it as much. I offered to help, but only after they put in the effort. My daughter is now a music teacher for elementary school, while my son wasn’t interested in college and became a world-class woodworker instead! But they are both strong Christians with a Christian worldview. It didn’t take capital to get them like that.

And if a woman’s idea of economic security is all the extras, then she isn’t worth having. We earned our way up to the extras!

Glenn, you’re wonderful, but you need to be less adversarial. I am not judging you, my plan is different than yours.

I want to raise Jennifer Roback Morse and William Lane Craig. Michele Bachmann and Stephen C. Meyer. Ann Coulter and Richard Bauckham. Money doesn’t hurt, and I have been living very cheaply in order to make sure I could offer my children anything they wanted to go there, if they want to. I would show them the problems, and then they could decide what they wanted to do.

Regarding material extras, I hate them. We are talking about letting her be a stay at home mom, doing an advanced degree part-time, getting someone to help her to to cook, or at least clean up the house, so she can focus on her homeschooling the kids, her research, her speaking and her writing. I’m NOT going to tell you my whole plan, but it’s not your plan. It’s my plan. And her plan.

Hi, Wintery Knight — This will be my final comment on the subject (for this post, anyway ;) ).

I agree with Glenn here.

He and I are speaking from experience, and he’s been quite forthcoming about his own marriage. I would really suggest giving his perspective and ideas serious thought. I read your description of what you’re bringing to the table and thought, ‘So what?’ I know loads of guys who are doing the same.

I would also suggest running your criteria past your clergyman — *all* your posts above — to see what he thinks.

Please don’t misunderstand — your blog is great and you seem to be a witty, charming, intelligent man until we get to the marriage bit.

You would like to get married, and we’ve just offered a bit of friendly advice.

Thanks for letting me have a say. And, no, I’m not being adversarial, just constructive. :)

I’m sorry you took me to be adversarial – I’m just trying to get across that I think you are being a wee bit unrealisitic. After we married my wife did not work outside the home because our worldview was against that. She did work outside the home for a few years when our kids were in the public school – she got work at the school as a lunchroom monitor and assistant librarian – which allowed her to be looking after her kids all day long! Of course that ended when we began homeschooling. From the time our first child was a year old in 1979 until 2008 she made lots of craft items at home and sold them at a theme park, so she was able to bring in some extra money (this came about as a request from someone who knew her skill as a seamstress)

Besides, you don’t have to be a William Craig or Michele Bachman to make a difference in this world! You may want your children to be that, but they may have other interests. (My big disappointment is that my son doesn’t want to study to be an apologist!)

I’m not knocking your plans per se, what I am suggesting is that you lighten up a bit and think more realistically!

1. Even though I don’t particularly agree with these assets, I too have seen that LOTS of men (even lots of non-Christians) are willing to bring romance, attention, and chivalry to relationships. Hence, I don’t think these assets are that rare and valuable.

2. Did you cite any particular Bible passage to the girl when you told her handholding was bad?

2) No. It’s just an extreme desire to avoid damaging her in any way. It’s protectiveness to an extreme degree. I did not say hand-holding was bad. I said that we should not do it, as much as I wanted to do that, and a lot more. I told her everything that I wanted to do, and how I felt about her, and what she did that made me feel that way. For me, the instinct to protect is extremely powerful. It results in a lot of constant thinking about what is best for her, and a heightened sense of alertness that anticipates her needs before she can even speak them.

What I find upsetting is the way that many women today select men who want nothing to do with Christianity, marriage and parenting.

Many “Christian” men these days aren’t men, they’re milk-sops who want a mother, not a mate, a help-meet, a wife.

Too many guys feel free to take advantage of the hook-up culture, then want to marry a woman with the experience of a pr0n-star but not the sexual history involved.

They expect their woman– may or may not be a wife, since it’s so much easier to just live together– to handle the bills, taxes, budget, food buying and prep, and clean the house and still have money for anything the man wants while spending little or nothing on herself, with all purchases like vacuum cleaners and cooking supplies ‘counting’ towards money she spent, generally because he’ll get paid into ‘his’ account and transfer a bit to ‘her’ account.

If there are pets or children, that’s her job.

If he wants to do something, it’s ‘we’– if she wants to do something, it’s ‘you.’

If he does something like watch his own child, clean up the mess he made, switch laundry loads (not fold, was or put away– just move from washer to dryer) or (heaven help you) cook dinner (not clean up after that job, just do the cooking) it will be used as a club for the next month or two.

Almost universally, modern men show a sold lack of self-directed irony or hypocrisy detection– specifically when it comes to letting someone know what’s going on. She warns a month ahead of time that X is happening and he forgets, it’s his fault; he decides a week ago and says nothing that they’ll do Y, and it’s just fine. Neither side is very good at emotional maintenance of a relationship.

Compiled from watching people, especially my sister’s friends.

Oh, I’ll also add– college-educated women are more likely to work outside the house, and if you’re working full time, talking care of the home and any pets or children, there’s not much left to up-keep the marriage.

I’d advise folks to do what I did– pray to God for the right person, and stop worrying about it. Work to be the person you want to be.

I think the antidote to this is that women need to be more selective with men, and specify the behaviors they are looking for up front. It’s probably a good idea to present the requirements for the man as part of some bigger Christian plan so that he can feel that he is doing the right things and being approved off, rather than just being bossed around for things that aren’t really virtuous and noble.

I’m chaste and I am going to be chaste when I marry and I had always hoped to marry someone chaste. I think that there is plent of space in courtship for men to do things to express how they feel and to demonstrate their commitment, without resorting to sex. Women with sexual histories do concern me – I feel that I will be compared to their other boyfriends on measures that are not relevant to marriage and parenting.

I also feel that I will be equated with these other bad men, so that it is OK to mistreat me because I am somehow guilty for what these other bad men with bad worldviews did. For women who are not good at discovering worldviews and making moral judgments, all men seem to be the same: bad.

I don’t think women should work if there are children below 5 in the house, and the man should have a financial plan to allow her to stay home during those years.

Hehe, Kit finally took a nap– I type pretty fast when I don’t have a baby climbing all over me!

I think the antidote to this is that women need to be more selective with men, and specify the behaviors they are looking for up front.

“Act like you weren’t raise by wolves” tends to scare folks off– not to mention that dating doesn’t usually give you a very good idea of a guy’s house-keeping skills, even assuming they don’t go down hill later on. ^.^

For women who are not good at discovering worldviews and making moral judgments, all men seem to be the same: bad.

That’s a plain-old human thing. I can’t count how many times I had to tease the guys out of an ‘all women are (blankety-blank) leaches’ rant when they’d vented long enough.

If we’re able, we should try to imitate Christ– if we are strong enough to accept, teach, work with a mate who was wrong, we should be open to that.

If we’re not cut out to do that, we should try to help folks who haven’t made mistakes yet keep from doing so.

I don’t think women should work if there are children below 5 in the house, and the man should have a financial plan to allow her to stay home during those years.

I’d say it’s nice if a woman can take care of her own children. There are other ways to work than going into an office, these days– shoot, my mom was a ranch hand when we were little; at three weeks I was packed along for emergency c-sections and all with grandma watching us on the rare times that wasn’t possible. A good idea is to set up the home life so the wife can do something but not need to contract-out childcare. Shoot, even forming a babysetting group….

Can someone here also acknowledge the effect of the economy here on the changes in family structure? My friends have a baby. THe husband was laid off; his wife works. He’s a good stay at hone dad. The days of “he works and provide for his family, she stays home and raises the kids” scenario” is a thing of the past.

There are plenty of couples who would welcome this (both liberals and conservatives), but the forces of capiialism prevent it. It’s not “feminism” that has caused men to lose their jobs and their wives to take over as primary breadwinner. Companies retain the cheapest, hardest working employees. Capitalism at work.

That will always be so, and you can knock feminism all you want, WK, but what is the alternative? A corporate setting where women are not welcome? That will never return, and for good reason.

Another thing about feminism. Susan B. Anthony, a Christian and feminist was pro-life.

See, a part of history you may not know or would rather not know is that when men had control of women’s bodies, husbands could order their wives to have abortions because they didn’t want and extra mouth to feed.

Around the 70s I saw angry women protesting saying that men could not force them to procreate. It was the strangest thing I ever saw. All I could think was, ‘duh, if you don’t want to have kids… Simple… they have operations for that. Snip Snip.”

This was before I understood that these women were still protesting the horror of the early 1900s in which their procreation WAS controlled by men. And men forced abortions on their women.

I’m pro-life. I’m also pro-responsibility. If you don’t want to get pregnant, do something about it BEFORE you engage in irresponsible behavior. However. I also work in the social services, know what rape and incest are. They are alive and well and destroy women and girls left and right. And though I don’t think aborting a child produced by rape solves anything, at the same time, I cannot be the one standing in judgement of women who have been raped. At this point, all I can really do is pray for them and hope for the best for them in the horror of their situation.

“Hooking-up over and over again is lousy preparation for courtship, marriage and parenting. It ruins a woman’s ability to be romantic, trusting and vulnerable.

You sir are a (probably unwitting) but still substantial sexist. ‘Hooking up’ as you demurely term it, ruins a women’s ability to be romantic, trusting and VULNERABLE. This doesn’t even make any sense as a statement and i’m a little disturbed at the use of your language in your choice of the word vulnerable, what exactly do you mean? That women should ultimately be dependant on Men?

“What I find upsetting is the way that many women today select men who want nothing to do with Christianity, marriage and parenting.”

What i find upsetting, is what seems to really bother you is that women have a CHOICE in who (if anyone) they choose as their partner. I also resent your assertion that legitimate marriage and parenting require religion to be involved when almost certainly the opposite is true.

GROW UP AND MOVE ON. come and join those of us who are trying to establish a society based on equality for ALL human beings.

Liz, how does hooking up over and over again (or, to put it more bluntly, having sex with as many men as you want to) prepare women for courtship, marriage and parenting? Does having sex with many men help women be a better spouse because she will be able to compare her spouse with all the men she’s slept with? Or perhaps, she can teach her children all about how to deal with the many STDs she has caught over her “hooking up” lifetime? Perhaps she can be a better parent by explaining to her daughter that she is no more then the sum total of her sexual urges?

As to your point about legitimate marriage and parenting doesn’t require religion to be involved, wait, what is your point? You make an allegation without any points being made at all. What is the incentive for a marriage to stay together without the trappings of religion?

I like Liz, and agree with her wholeheartedly, of course. But I would. What you seem to be forgetting is that your idea of what is “suitable” or “unsuitable” is only valid for you. Other people have little interest in the criteria you set forth. I am not claiming that they are even incorrect: they are your criteria and more power to you in finding someone who satisfies them. I, on the other hand, would expect my life-partner to be atheistic (or at least an agnostic pagan), feministic, have little or no respect for hierarchies and structures of power, be able to think for herself and hopefully have more than a passing knowledge of mathematics, biology, astrophysics, music, cosmology, philosophy, folkloristics and history. The physical abilities and charms are also important, but are secondary, as are her weapon and survival skills. Obviously, what you find to be suitable, I would find repellent. Such is life.

The problem is, of course, that your ethics causes incredible social damage that we all have to pay for. From abortion, to fatherlessness, to STDs, to divorce, to crime, to sexual abuse, and other things I am not mentioning. Hedonism (sinfulness) costs money. And the moral people end up footing the bill for the immoral.

“The physical abilities and charms are also important, but are secondary, as are her weapon and survival skills.”

Who says I am a hedonist? I am a good epicurean, of course. However, your use of the word “sinfulness” again betrays your religious preconceptions. I may even agree with you on what constitutes moral and immoral behaviour (I value honesty, inquisitiveness, honour, thoughtfulness and kindness), but I would not include sexual behaviour within the realm of morality, as long as it takes place between two (or more!) consenting adults. I do not have to like particular behaviours myself (I am heterosexual, for example) to recognize that that is all it is: my own personal preference.

But unlike Athiests who just want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, I’m interested in keeping the baby. But the bathwater must go. The abuse must stop. The bad actions of a few are destroying the witness of us all.
And I’m getting tired of it.

Oops.
Missed this one.
(smile)
I’m inclined to agree with you that it IS more alive in the world than in the church.
What with sex trafficking and all.

The point I’m making is not that it is more alive and well in church or among christians but rather that, if we Christians claim to have the right faith, if Jesus truely is the Way, the Truth, and the Life like we claim, then we ought to do a better job policing ourselves.

The church and Christianity is where the abused and downtrodden should be running to for protection and to escape oppression.
But in many quarters, the opposite is happening. The abused and downtrodden are running away from church.

As Wintery is trying to change the course of out country through this blog and good Christian Apologetica, so I’m trying to change the course of the religious right away from shallow and pat answers that sweep the real problems under the rug.

One size fits all answers look like this, “feminism is making women unsuitable for marriage.”

Oh really? Well what do the wolves in sheeps clothing freely preying on our young while entire denomiations look the other way do? Make women suitable?

Not hardly.

It just sets them up to run to the arms of the feminists who ‘understand’ the plight of women in a male dominated institution.

The world is far more complicated than that. These simple and uninformed answers don’t cover the half of it.

Mara, if the problem is premarital sex, which destroys a woman’s ability to bond, trust and serve in a family, then who is more responsible for that? Would you say that it was more the Southern Baptists, or more sex education in the public schools, which are dominated by feminist ideology that women should act like men and have sex like a man?

WG, if you had read what I said, you would have known what I was getting at.

I said, “The bad actions of a few are destroying the witness of us all.”

I’m not accusing you or any of the men who post here, or all Baptists of commiting this sin. It’s a small percentage.

But just as women can have a herd mentality, so can men.

And far too often, men in general, including Christian men, can group together and make sweeping generalizations, like “50% of rape victims make up their story” because it makes them feel better. Not because there is any truth in it. (Thanks to McS for her research.)

Unfortunately, it is easier for Christian men to sweep these facts under the rug and pretend they aren’t true rather than face the fact that there IS a crisis going on. One that DOES need to be dealt with by the MEN of the church.

And by not acknowledging this crisis they invalidate and marginalize the women and girl survivers of this crime. Women may be lurking here who are considering throwing out the baby with the bathwater because they found no help within the church, only men accusing them of making things up, etc.

So much is said on this Blog that I agree with. I agree with the need for fathers, the sanctity of human life, saving one’s self for marriage, the right for law abiding citizens to have and bear arms.

But in all my agreeing with the general tenants of conservatism, I’ll not turn a blind eye to the wounded in our own camp.

Nor will I pretend there aren’t wolves in sheep’s clothing preying on our vulnerable ones all the while successfully pulling the wool over the eyes those in leadership DO who take their faith seriously, like you.

For the record, I’m not Baptist, but I have a huge respect for Baptists on a grass roots level. The Baptist pastor in our town is a great man and is involved with the community in awesome ways. And I think this is the norm in small town U.S.A.

But the wolves exist, and not just in Baptist circles. I wish the true shepherds would rise up and truely protect the lambs and ewes rather than protect their positions of authority. What I have seen is that this herd mentality among men has too often made a safe haven for the predators among us.

And I am also seeing too many women leave the faith because of this herd mentality among men that accuses women to protect the individual male and men in general.

Call it throwing stones if it makes you feel better.
I call it bringing a valid point to the conversation.

And you are not taking into account the study McS cited nor the truth that when a rape victim comes forward, she often feels raped twice because of the system.

Many go back as say it didn’t happen either because of threats, or it’s just not worth it to follow through to the end.

A true rape victim is highly traumatized and wants to stay away from anything that triggers her PTSD. This includes courts, doctor’s exams, police stations.

I’m not saying that men aren’t falsely accused. They are. And it shouldn’t happen. I feel very badly for any man and his family who has ever had to go through it. And I do think there should be consequences against any woman who uses the system for the reasons you state above.

But 40% seems such an inflated number that I highly suspect its authenticity.

This reminds me that I also need to write posts on paternity fraud and false accusations of sexual abuse during custody battles, in order to get custody of the children and the child support dollars they represent.

Authors’, and they in that very same sentence say that there’s not enough evidence to dismiss the higher numbers.

Very little formal research has been conducted on the prevalence of false allegations of rape. One study looked at the 109 cases of forcible rape that were disposed of in one small midwestern town between 1978 and 1987 (Kanin, 1994). The given town was specifically selected for study because the police department used a uniquely objective and thorough protocol when investigating rape complaints. Among other procedural safeguards, officers did not have the discretion to drop rape investigations if they concluded the complaint was “suspect” or unfounded. Every rape accusation had to be thoroughly investigated and included offering a polygraph to both the accuser and the accused. Cases were only determined to be false if and when the accuser admitted that no rape occurred.

The researchers further investigated those cases that the police, through their investigation, had ultimately determined were “false” or fabricated. During the follow-up investigation, the complainants held fast to their assertion that their rape allegation had been true, despite being told they would face penalties for filing a false report. As a result, 41% of all of the forcible rape complaints were found to be false. To further this study, a similar analysis was conducted on all of the forcible rape complaints filed at two large midwestern public universities over a 3-year period. Here, where polygraphs were not offered as part of the investigatory procedure, it was found that 50% of the complaints were false.

Thanks for your reply. I’m trying to understand exactly where you are coming from and what you are trying to say.

First of all, you should know that I am not, nor have ever been, a Baptist. I am an evangelical non-denominational free thinking Christian, and attend that type of church. That being said, I have a great deal of respect for the Baptist congregation and think that they are one of the better denominations out there.

Surely you must realize that every church has its share of deviants and wackos who abuse their positions of authority and do awful things. So why are you picking on the Baptists? Why not a link to “Stop Presbyterian Predators”?

Are you saying that people who go to Baptist churches are MORE likely to be sexual deviants than people who attend more liberated, feminized egalitarian churches? Or are you just trying to embarass a congregation that you resent for teaching doctrines about male authority that you happen to disagree with?

Specifically, what is your beef with people who take what Peter and Paul said literally and try to live their lives by those teachings? If you want to reject those teachings, that is between you and God. It doesn’t seem to have made you any happier though. You seem to have some kind of massive chip on your shoulder against men. Just an observation.

If I sound overly harsh, I don’t mean to. I don’t have any problem with you but I find your message confusing and irritating. You are clearly unhappy about something but seem unable (or unwilling) to verbalize exactly what you are unhappy about.

This entire argument would be more effective if the writers came down on their own gender (men) for hooking up, which does not prepare them to be good husbands and fathers and also ruins them for courtship.

A woman who is very aware that sex that does not involve pumping huge amounts of hormones into one’s self, that doesn’t involve becoming pregnant, that is entered entirely sober on both parts and ignoring the emotional side…still tends to have a much higher rate of infection for women on the STD side.
The most deadly are stopped, if the condom works and there is zero contact with the other’s mucus membranes, but there are a LOT that go off of skin-to-skin— syphilis, for example.

Heard about the effect that one parent having genital warts, totally controlled, has on the poor baby… or the cancer risk of HPV….

It’s more dangerous for women to have many sex partners, and women are less likely to initiate a hookup. Thus, we’re the “weak link” in the hook up, and thus a much better target for controlling out of control sexuality.

I actually have an entire post with reasons why men should REFUSE an offer of casual sex. A lot of women today come out of homes where there has been an abandonment by the father, a divorce, or a separation. This often causes enormous problems for young women. But it is not THEIR FAULT. So men who are good need to keep in mind that the woman doesn’t really want sex. She is just often desperate for love and attention from men and sex is (she thinks) the easiest way to get it. In the same way as a good man wouldn’t hurt a bird with a broken wing, a good man should take advantage of a young woman from a bad background. She didn’t choose it, and a good man will give her love from afar instead of taking advantage of her. It’s a very Christian thing to do.

I think that women should keep this in mind when choosing a husband, to make sure they choose one who will stick around. Children need fathers!

I just wrote this post (above) focusing on women because I think women have more to lose from hook-up sex than men. I’ve never had sex just because I cannot stand the idea of harming a woman or an unborn baby. It would be dishonorable. Have you ever seen a woman’s face light up when you tell them that you love them? Women are meant to be loved, not used and thrown away. You have to bind to them for life. That’s what they are for!

wow i have never heard someone put it like that before. i can’t tell u how many men i have known who think it is okay to lie to, use, and discard women who grew up in abusive families. thank you, that post made my day.

the current trend in parenting might have suggested that the feminism among women is not ideal for marriage and parenting but we must understand that individuals can do, get involved to something and excel – regardless of gender…for as long she has faith in it..and it is worth it.

I am a little bit of a feminist in terms of equal rights and woman being treated with respect and being allowed their own careers other than just following a man’s hopes and dreams (NOT TO BE MISTAKEN FOR A WOMAN BEHAVING LIKE A MAN). Marriage should be a thing that both parties want to get into for no selfish reasons and most importantly to reflect the love of God.

Of course we want a man / woman with good standards as well as the love of God in the hearts. I would hate if someone only wanted me on the basis of some criteria that I doubt that they could live up to .

A man that is brave and strong is great but doesn’t treat a woman like a weeping willow. Respects her for what she brings to the relationship namely her strength , love and trust. Not forcing her into motherhood just because she is a Christian not all women want babes and dumping her with the full responsibility of the children.

You BOTH brought God’s blessing into the world it’s BOTH of your jobs to get stuck in from cradle to when they say bye. Extreme feminism has been made worse by this alpha male type constantly dumping the woman with the children , following his own plan and making the woman’s needs needs come last, not being manly but weak because they haven’t taken responsibility. Making woman resentful and leading to them taking too much charge. Men and women were created differently for a reason it wasn’t an accident

We agree on everything including your definition of feminism. I am not an alpha male. I resent alpha males. I would expect to have the lead role raising the children from age 5 or 6 onward.

I do think that the wife has a choice during courtship to accept the man’s plan or not. It’s not like it is sprung on her later without her consent and against her will. She has to choose whether to support his plan during courtship.

Wintery, you can’t see the forest for the trees. Feminism has won great things for women, begrudgingly from men. So you focus only on the negative, never the positive.

I’ll address a single issue: women in the workplace. Women acting like men? This is your definition and it’s lacking. Feminism’s goal is equal rights, and gaining any right generally entails looking, acting, doing business, just like the side that already has the right until you have it for yourself and then you can act like yourself. Women acting like men is a stage, albeit one you find unfortunate. And if they want to, that’s their right until they feel comfortable acting like themselves. You forget how often women are attacked for doing this. You frequently lament it, thus Mara’s apt submission of the lyrics, “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?”

WHen it comes to gaining rights, women getting to act like women comes when men welcome them for who/what/how they conduct themselves. Who are you to delimit what is acceptable?Feminists stand for women’s rights as people (those that men have long enjoyed) and women’s rights as women (those only they can have). Maternity leave is a feminist issue. Family leave, too. But you never mention that.

But back to women in the workplace. You speak so often as though this is some kind of evil ruining the family. Women are good for business creatively, economically, ethically. Business and the US economy is built on women’s contributions and they’re not going away. So stop lamenting this, already. I know you want a wife who’ll stay home and happily do your bidding, but to blame all feminists for your failure to do it is, well–not scientific, IMHO. And it’s doesn’t seem to be bringing you closer to your dream, which is a perfectly legitimate one that I, McSpinster, churchgal and feminist, dearly hope you achieve.

I am for equal opportunity and strong women (e.g. – Michele Bachmann and Jennifer Roback Morse), but I am also for women having a choice to stay home and take care of their children, and the incentives and laws that government puts into place should not force them out of the home. Women who choose to stay home should not be made to feel bad for doing so.

Wintery,
I so totally agree with this comment to the extreme.
I know that many of the things you say are right on.
But you say some really combative things that put off women who would otherwise agree with you.
If you want women to join the fight with you for conservative values, one good place to start is to stop looking at the majority of women as you enemies. And if you don’t feel that way about the majority of women, stop sounding like you do.

Bravo, Wintery! We are for the same things. And I do think, if you start reading different source material, that you will read about feminists (the majority, at least) who are staunch supporters of women choosing to stay home (choice being a feminist mantra) and not being made to feel bad for doing so. Further, you should be interested to read some of the articles put out by a number of women’s magazines not so long ago expounding upon, not just the emotional value of motherhood, but it’s salary equivalent. Seek and ye shall find, Wintery! Feminists (the majority) support women’s choices: to work outside of the home, inside the home, or both.

We disagree, and I am the only one who quote actual feminists. And they disagree with everything you said there.

“[The] housewife is a nobody, and [housework] is a dead-end job. It may actually have a deteriorating effect on her mind…rendering her incapable of prolonged concentration on any single task. [She] comes to seem dumb as well as dull. [B]eing a housewife makes women sick.” ~ Sociologist Jessie Bernard in The Future of Marriage, 1982.

“A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism…the [housewife’s] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable…. [W]oman’s work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a ‘career’ for woman.” ~ Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949.

“[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.” ~ Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 1963.

“[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” ~ Gloria Steinem, “What It Would Be Like If Women Win,” Time, August 31, 1970.

“[The husband’s work] provides for greater challenges and opportunities for growth than are available to his wife, [whose] horizons are inevitably limited by her relegation to domestic duties. [This] programs her for mediocrity and dulls her brain…. [Motherhood] can only be a temporary detour.” ~ Nena O’Neill and George O’Neill, Open Marriage: A New Lifestyle for Couples, 1972.

“Women owe Frieden an incalculable debt for The Feminine Mystique…. Domesticity was not a satisfactory story of an intelligent woman’s life.” ~ Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life, 1996.

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” ~ Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, “The Daily Illini,” April 25, 1981.

“[As long as the woman] is the primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being.” ~ Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, 1969.

“[A]s long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed…. No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.” ~ Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975.

“Feminism was profoundly opposed to traditional conceptions of how families should be organized, [since] the very existence of full-time homemakers was incompatible with the women’s movement…. [I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are very young…. If women disproportionately take time off from their careers to have children, or if they work less hard than men at their careers while their children are young, this will put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis men, particularly men whose wives do all the homemaking and child care…. This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking.” ~ Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, 1986.

The laws, tax rates and courts are dominated by this worldview – that men and women have to be identical and 50/50 in every discipline and profession. It is not appealing to me as a man to step into a hornet’s nest that I did not create, but which I must fund with the sweat of my brow. I can either spend what I earn on BEING A MAN, or I can spend it on A MAN SUBSTITUTE (government). I can’t spend my dollars two ways. And how my dollars get spent has already been decided by the votes of young, unmarried women. They want government, not husbands and fathers. They would rather be free to treat men like objects than to have to be careful in choosing them and obligated to love them.

You may say that – Wintery Knight
she does have a choice to accept his plan however does he accept hers. I have always dated people that have been a little different to me. I don’t see the point of me getting a degree , masters if I am just going to follow my husbands plan and I am going to be ignored, waste of talent really. This was an excuse and still is an excuse not to educate women. Lets face it you won’t require a degree to be a housewife.

A balance needs to be addressed my mother like my grandmother had a career and spent a period of time being a home maker. Maybe more acceptable because of my culture.
However she did both roles so well she wasn’t resented , devalued or had her children thrown at her. Mothers or women that choose a career should not have all the knifes thrown at them. Some men need to step up instead of being half there for their family or being married to their career should look to themselves for the failure of the family as well as hardcore feminists

As a woman I would like to say, the feminist movement was a GOOD thing. I have the freedom to have a job, to not marry a man at 20 and have kids. I won’t be starred down in m 30s if I am single and don’t have a kid holding my hand. I don’t run the risk of being fired if a man wants my job.

Secondly; I like Sex. Yes you heard me, I LIKE SEX.

And if you were a true christian you wouldn’t judge that. What I do behind closed doors with how ever many men I want whether that is 1 or 22 is none of your business. It’s my body and I won’t have ANYONE or any God dictate how or what I do with it.

And you know what? I find that men find that attractive.

I know what you want sir, you want a wife of the past. One who will please your every whim and will have NO say in your marriage.

And quite frankly that idea is back in the 1950s and backwards WHERE IT BELONGS.

You wouldn’t want to date a “modern woman”? Well good because no modern women would want to date, let alone MARRY you. Especially if you think you’re going to

“have the lead role raising the children from age 5 or 6 onward.”

They did not come out of your vagina good sir. You should have an EQUAL part in raising them.

Oh and another thing if you somehow go on a date I would not show her this link. She will never call you again.

I have the ultimate freedom by understanding what it means to be created a woman. Who can be against you if you have God on your side?
I have a successful career, no husband, no children, and none of that is a result of feminism. It has been God’s plan for my life so far.
We live in a society where good is evil and evil is good. Everyone doing what is right in their own eyes, without a thought for their immortal soul.
If any of my female friends were having sex with 1 or 22 men outside of marriage, I would point out the error of their ways, (and have done on occasion). That’s not judging them, its loving them. No one should judge you for your ‘lifestyle choices’, but there is a day appointed when you will die and after that comes the judgement from a Holy God that we ALL sin against daily in thought word and deed. He will judge and He will judge righteously. That means Heaven or Hell eternally.
I’m sure there are plenty of men who find your attitude attractive. Sex free and easy, dont have to commit. Get what they want, then get out. Feminism may try to instill an illusion of equality for the sexes but the sad result is that women allow themselves to be used by men and discarded. Are we not worth more? I am the daughter of a King, and deserve to be treated as such. If the first thing a woman gives a man is her body, that’s what he will consider most important. Not her mind, her intellect and certainly not her heart. That will be the foundation of the relationship and when the body is done with, he’ll move on.
I often wonder why feminists dont stop and consider why they remain unsatisfied, angry and unhappy, despite the apparent freedom they now have. Living a war that rages against their created right to be a woman might just be the answer.

Destroying my soul? I don’t see how choosing to be sexually active before marriage makes me such a bad person that it “destroys my soul”.

Blow up doll? You don’t know me. Just because I enjoy sex doesn’t mean I have it with as many men as I can. I have had one sex partner who is my long time boyfriend of six years.

Trolling? No good sir, only stating my opinion. I simply have a… well I guess conversation wise you could call it a fetish with religion. So when someone makes an argument or point on the basis of religion and it’s open to comments/discussion I will give my opinion as I see fit.

And Wintery Knight, I’m actually flattered and can’t wait to see what you write.

I actually apologize for my tone.. it was 3 am where I live and I was writing a research paper on women in marriage over the years so I’m sure you can understand why I came off so fiery.

You really have zero ability to see things from someone else’s perspective– as your utterly clueless response shows.

Here’s a hint: instead of focusing on yourself, try thinking about why someone else is acting as they are, especially when you’re going to try to use their religion as a hammer.

I am not a sir, I’m a woman. I am someone who will point out when someone’s ‘opinion’ is an irrational attack that tries to find what they value and use it as a weapon.
You show up on a long-abandoned post, throw out a pile of bile and attacks, rather miss the entire point–

it was 3 am where I live and I was writing a research paper on women in marriage over the years so I’m sure you can understand why I came off so fiery.

I’d suggest that if you’re doing research about marriage through the years, you try historical documents– not year old blog posts.

Bull shit like this:I know what you want sir, you want a wife of the past. One who will please your every whim and will have NO say in your marriage.
Shows that you need better information.
My great-grandmother, having no say in her marriage? HA! She kicked the SOB out and moved on, with her son, just fine. The other great-grandmother? Informed her husband that they were moving to America, and he’d better go tell his younger sons good bye before they headed to make ready.

Unlike WK, I’m a rather cynical person: I do not believe you. I still think you are probably a troll looking for reactions. That may be my own irrational attachment to research that doesn’t want to believe such a pile of crud could be plopped down in the name of actual research.

Just in case you are wondering – take a look at Galations 5:19-21.
Btw, there are a lot more verses that address fornication and even take it a step further (ie Matt 5:28).

Btw, you have nothing to worry about because Jesus loves you and will forgive you and accept you into heaven despite continuing in known sin (the greatest lie ever told was “thou shalt not surely die” / God doesnt mean what He says ( think about it).

– what does the word say about sex ?
– what does the word say “sexually active” ?

Btw, I am not “judging” you or someone who has sexual intercourse outside the confines of marriage. I am simply asking a question. Btw, quite often people confuse” judgment” with “observed behavior” ( ie. to “judge” a persons action is to offer ones own opinion such anyone who has premarital sex is a sinning (fact) and belongs in hades (judgement).
Do you see the difference ?

With that being said- the bible is pretty clear on sex. It is in the confines of marriage or abstinence (If anyone finds a scriptures that are contrary to that, please let me know).

Whether one realizes it or not – “known sin” carries consequences. The first is it breaks fellowship with God ( remember the Garden of Eden ?) One sin / disobedience to God has caused the pain and wreckage the last 5000 years….. ONE SIN !!!!! It all came down to ” God doesnt REALLY mean what He says… You wont surly die”. That was and is the greatest lie ever told to this day and is a common deception of Satan.

In term of fornication ( and all other sins) – here is “the rub”. They carry physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual consequences. There is NO getting around it. The entire bible is pretty much if a person doesnt change and continues in “self will / sin / bad behaviors” they will not inherit the Kingdom of God ( it no not about going to Heaven ( not scriptual anyways) – it is about having fellowship with Christ and the Father which was lost in the the Garden of Eden ( and eternal life ). Btw, God is a lot more loving and “cool” than He gets credit for. Imagine, a beautiful place to live. didnt have to work, a hot wife / husband, and fellowship with the creator of the universe and all you have to do is ” DONT TOUCH THE ONE TREE’. Seems like a good deal ( at least to me) and a acceptable “house rule”.

Now if that is a good deal and shows the true nature of God ( incredible) then I dont know what does.

Despite what you think, God want to bring you joy and give you the desires of your heart. However, it is within His framework, timing, and will. I am quite afraid that you will learn the lesson that many of us have learned (including myself) that sex outside marriage brings misery, heartache, and unchangeable consequences for the worse. All sin does this (known and unknown) , simply stated, there are good consequences for doing the right thing and bad consequences for the doing the wrong thing( you reap what you sow).. To think otherwise is all encompassing panacea of which one is looking through “rose colored glasses” and is the typical of the feminist / Hollyweird message with screams “you can have your cake and eat it too…

I would really like to encourage you to ask God what He thinks about the whole thing and go from there….

My my, You indict women for all of the ills of society. Where are all of the moral men to stem the tide of female evil?
Let us look at it a different way.
— who fathered the children of single moms? They did not arrise by spontaneous generation. The only legitimate reason for a child having a single parent is the death of one.
— How many of those female headed housholds are the result of men walking away from their wives and their children? Why have states recently enacted statutes to garnish wages and sieze property of deadbeat dads?
Because the problem of getting these men to support their children is intractabl. Forget trying to get them to interact with the the children they brought into the world.
— Who are these women hooking with? Not with each other, surely.
By your measure, men are a bunch of weak, pleasure driven, simpletons who are easily led by women. If that is the case, then they have no business being in charge.
The feminist are probably surprised at how easy it is to take over. Who knew the power of carnal pleasure over men.